Filed: Mar. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES , District Judge . Eddie Scott, Jr., an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate formerly housed at the Pulaski County Detention Center, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Document #2. In his amended complaint, filed September 11, 2014, Scott sued John Doe defendants 1-5 and Jane Doe defendants 1-5, in addition to other named defendants. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every defendant must be served with the complaint and a summons within 12
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES , District Judge . Eddie Scott, Jr., an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate formerly housed at the Pulaski County Detention Center, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Document #2. In his amended complaint, filed September 11, 2014, Scott sued John Doe defendants 1-5 and Jane Doe defendants 1-5, in addition to other named defendants. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every defendant must be served with the complaint and a summons within 120..
More
ORDER
J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge.
Eddie Scott, Jr., an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate formerly housed at the Pulaski County Detention Center, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Document #2. In his amended complaint, filed September 11, 2014, Scott sued John Doe defendants 1-5 and Jane Doe defendants 1-5, in addition to other named defendants.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every defendant must be served with the complaint and a summons within 120 days of the filing of a complaint. This includes Doe defendants. Any defendant who is not served within 120 days can be dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice.
In an Order of January 23, 2015, the Court gave Scott an additional forty-five days to identify the Doe defendants so that they could be served with process. Document #30. To date, Scott has not identified the unnamed defendants or provided valid addresses for them. Scott was specifically cautioned that his failure to comply with the Court's January 23, 2015 Order could result in the dismissal of his claims against these defendants.
Therefore, Scott's claims against the Doe defendants are DISMISSED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
